Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:40, 10 March 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

CSD Backlog

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28

Admins needed at WP:AIV

Backlogs getting created. Enigma 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the backlog has been reduced to zero now. Marking as resolved. Lankiveil 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Watchlist addition

Where would one suggest an addition to the watchlist? I'd like to see a feature where editors can have checked items on their watchlist highlighted when they appear on the watchlist. (I'm sure this is not where to ask, it'll get the most attention here, though). iMatthew // talk // 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals), I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If I read your suggestion right, you're looking for a way to create a sort of 'high-priority' category of watchlist items, where changes to those specific pages will result in highlighted entries on your regular watchlist, yes?

If that is what you're looking for, there's a couple of ways to achieve that without waiting for a software change. The direct way is to create a second account; add only the 'high-priority' items to the second account's watchlist. That can be a bit of a nuisance, though.

The more subtle method is to create a page in your userspace that consists of just links to your 'high-priority' pages. If you click on the 'Related changes' link (in the 'toolbox' to the left of the page), it will show the recent changes to all the pages linked from that high-priority page. You can create a shortcut link from somewhere in your userspace using the standard external link link format: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:IMatthew/ImportantPages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be moved to:

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Watchlist addition
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Categorised watchlist

Probably a better place for this. — CharlotteWebb 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

KGB (Company)

Can some help with KGB (Company) some keeps tagging it with a speedy template and its not even an hour old.HereFord 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy, as it doesn't apply. That's some very strange db tagging, I must note. --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedied - no evidence of notability, unsourced, 2 Google hits. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I got 21,400, but I'm sure many of those are false positives. :) (It drops to 4,000 when I narrow it down to New York. I don't know if they're notable. (They could be very good at self-promotion.) --Moonriddengirl 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. I'll undo. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclining to think good at self-promotion, though they've certainly got a highly visible ad. (I've seen it, anyway, and I don't watch much t.v. :)) I'll tag it for various, if you haven't already. Think there's a word about civility, though, that needs to happen in light of this. --Moonriddengirl 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and since the article is deleted, I can't see it or its history), the fact that the article was not an hour old is no reason not to speedy it - that's what speedy deletion is for. The vast majority of speedy-tags are added within minutes of an article's creation. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This one in particular was inappropriate. After tagging it as "vandalism", the tagger then tagged it as "no context." And, I see, has just tagged it so again. --Moonriddengirl 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've advised the tagger of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment- this user has been erroneously tagging many articles as A1. I talked to him about it but he responded with calling me a smartass. LetsdrinkTea 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a diff of that? I can't find it. Anyhow, I've warned the user again to stop tagging articles until they understand the CSD. If they continue, they could be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got it, here. --Moonriddengirl 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure If your areNot respectfull at this page.........I WILL FIND YOU on their Talk page is very collegial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a funny thing goin' on...

One user, we may call him AntiCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) nominates an article that another user, we call him Middlesbrough99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has contributed to. A look at the edit history of both users is quite interesting I may assume. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, even more fun: Entrance Argentoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you think is going on here and why it requires administrator intervention? I'm afraid that I don't understand what it is that you're alluding to in your post. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to understanding, well... First I wondered how an absolute new user can make his first edits in perfectly nominating an article for deletion. Then I saw the second user, also very new, throwing with warning templates and going to WP:AIV. And then I saw the similiar names of two of the users, and their similiar position on the nominated article. Enough? It's quite easy, it's only less than 10 edits for each user. There might be more of them out there somewhere... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's something which urgently needs to be fixed, it might be best to take this to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Argentoss. ;-) But I'm not too sure that this is the only problem here... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

May I take this opportunity to gently point out that having process-oriented edits as one's first is not prima facie evidence of sockpuppeting? (without commenting specifically on this case; it is merely relevant to the subject in general, and I've seen a lot of people here lately assuming that since a user's first edits were to XfD/RfA/DRV/etc. they must be a sockpuppet) It is entirely possible for someone to spend a lot of time reading up on policy and procedures before actually joining Misplaced Pages. Hermione1980 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is also perfectly legitimate for a user to abandon an account and start over with a different one, and is not considered sockpuppetry. Chick Bowen 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is addressed at me: I have opened a lot of sockpuppet cases and this is the first one where I'm not sure of the outcomings. That's why I'm here. Also, I need advice. This Francesco Bellissimo is nominated for deletion on several wikipedias right now or has been deleted recently (as stated in the AfD). Sorry, but something's really fishy, isn't it?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with visiting other wikis and taking action to remove spamed articles. I don't see much evidence that Francesco Bellissimo meets WP:BIO and the article is written in a spammy style, so the nomination appears reasonable, especially if the article has been deleted on other Wikis - editors there could be following the article's many interwiki links. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, I apologize if it seems my comment was aimed specifically at you. It was not intended as such. Hermione1980 03:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Hermione. I still wonder why I'm the only one to see something strange going on here. Maybe I'll do a bit of research on this guy and see if this helps. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what's going on looks a bit unusual, but there doesn't seem anything which is outright bad occurring. The sock puppet investigation seems to be all that's needed here, and it might be appropriate to mark this as resolved as no intervention seems necessary. I note that the editor who successfully nominated the article for deletion on the Italian Misplaced Pages seems to have posted a notification of this on our article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I read Misplaced Pages for about five years before I ever edited anything, you can know a lot about the inner workings of Misplaced Pages without having ever edited. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Join the club. Some of my first edits were to ANI, simply because some of the cases were entertaining. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one make a change to a user name

Hi - I just registered, and darned it, misspelled my user name. I meant to type "RunsWithScissors" and typed "RuinsWithScissors" instead. I can live with it but is there a way to change it? I've not posted anything as yet - brand new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiunsWithScissors (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See changing user name. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter is fine, my daughter should probably use that nick :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You really should take care, since you typed "Riuns" instead of "Ruins" - what a mess... Welcome! ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste time going through CHU, just abandon this mispelled name and create a new one, with the proper spelling. –xeno (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ruins with Scissors"...it's kinda evil...I like :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User re-creating creation-protected article under different names

User:Liampaulmurphy created the article Mintsoft Librarian. It was speedily deleted (G11/A7). After about four times article got speedied, I applied for creation-protection. After that, user created article under the name of Mintsoftware librarian. I warned (4im) the user. User then continued creating the article. User has not responded to any comment on his user page. I would like to see the user blocked. Guy0307 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has also been adding the phrase "This is blatant advertising" to articles on similar subjects , , apparently in support of his claim that WP is unfairly discriminating against his article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I love his use of newspeak. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I salted the new article, suggest that no further action is needed at the moment, let's just keep an eye on him. I suspect that he will run out of steam. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Salted the article"? Theresa, are long-term editors like you & me expected to be Wiki-gourmets now? If so, I'd be in trouble: most of the recipes I follow begin, "Pre-heat the oven to 350 degrees". -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need history merge

Could someone please help the user who just did a cut and paste move at Eliyahu Koren? You'll also want to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Koren where the user explained why she was blanking the article bit-by-bit.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban of User:Hipocrite

During the FAC for Water fluoridation it has been agreed (by all those that commented) that Opposition to water fluoridation is out of sync with the higher quality main article, and that it needs to be rewritten/synchronized with it. Unfortunately, the intervention of User:Hipocrite in Opposition to water fluoridation is making this process unnecessarily difficult. Hipocrite offers no substantive criticism of the changes implemented, but reverts them based because he "can't follow".

As demonstrated by the process that took place in the main article, in which Hipocrite did not participate, changes can converge towards a good quality article, with only a few contentious points hammered out in long, but substantive and fruitful discussions on the talk page. We have no need for disruptive tactics from users that refuse to substantiate what their objections are about. So, I'm asking for User:Hipocrite to be banned from editing Opposition to water fluoridation, because all he effectively contributes are unexplained reversals; he should still be allowed to comment on the talk page, assuming he finds something substantive to object to. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? I just wanted the massive change that was almost impossible to follow to be discussed on the talk page before it was made. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions for the sole sake of process aren't appropriate. If you disagree with the changes to the article, say so and discuss them on the talk page. Reverting simply because changes were significant is disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the place for this. A topic ban is not how we solve simple disagreements. Talk it out on the talk page. Asking that edits be explained and discussed is not inappropriate and not "process" but human interaction and how we build consensus. Chillum 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My understanding that WP:DR can be used if there are some substantive reasons for disagreement. If a user just reverts your changes, and repeatedly argues that he "can't follow" without getting into any specifics, you'd have a really hard time engaging in a meaningful dispute resolution because the dispute isn't even stated. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This edit is the one that Hipocrite singled out on the article talk page. As he notes, it does indeed appear to make a substantial number of changes without a great deal of explanation. (The edit summary "revising this page a fair bit" is certainly accurate, but a bit brief for such a major change.)

Rather than discuss the change in more detail, Xasodfuih makes the rather insulting suggestion that Hipocrite should move to simple.wikipedia.org (), and then comes here to request a page ban. Not classy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow. Why should I be discussing somebody else's changes when I wasn't the one reverting? The onus for giving a rationale for removing/disputing sourced material should be on the person removing or disputing it. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I came here only after Hipocrite made further posts refusing to explain why he is disputing the material. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have also misquoted me, TenOfAllTrades. I wrote "If you have no concrete criticism to offer, I suggest you move another page, or even better to simple.wikipedia.org." Note the conditional. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is you who should be opening the discussion, not Hipocrite. You make a large change to the page, he reverts to the status quo. There is no gross policy violation, and so it is up to you to justify why the change should be made, not up to Hipocrite to justify why the page should stay as it is. Bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, revert, revert and patronise, discuss. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x X) Please familiarize yourself with the article history before commenting. The substantive changes, as evidenced by the diffs , , were made by User:ImperfectlyInformed, not by myself. Nor did I make any reverts, those were made by Hipocrite , . My only contribution to the article space of this article (as opposed to the main one on water fluoridation) was , the addition of {bad summary} templates before any of the above changes by II or Hipocrite. Then II made some changes, Hipocrite reverted, claiming "multiple concerns", the only one of which he singled out on talk was unfounded. After that II put some changes back, but Hipocrite reverted again without giving any substantive reasons. For the sake of completeness, the 1st edit of II given here was also report to WP:AE by User:ScienceApologist, but the complaint was quickly closed as frivolous disruption. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask an editor to explain his or her major edits. 'Revising this page' is an insufficient level of detail if someone makes a good-faith inquiry. The diff is a complicated hodgepodge, but it appears changes were made to the wording and references in the lede section, to the format and contents of references throughout, to the entire section on 'potential health risks', to the 'history' section, and to the reference format in the 'conspiracy theories' section. It's not readily apparent to casual examination which sections have received only housekeeping attention (reformatting of references without other changes, wikilinking terms), which sections have been slightly tweaked (minor rephrasing, moving of footnotes), and which sections have undergone major changes (references added or removed in their entirety, tone of text changed to resolve or create bias issues, sentences or full paragraphs added and removed).

You seem to be supporting the edit to the extent that you're insulting another editor and calling for a page ban to defend it — you ought to be prepared to offer a description and rationale for each of those changes. Further review of your contributions suggests that you've gone to the editor who made the changes and asked him to make them on a step-by-step basis (good!) and also accused Hipocrite of "play thick" (bad!): .

This is an article on a very contentious topic. It is important to edit with caution, care, and open communication in order to prevent the inadvertent (or deliberate) introduction of bias, error, or omission. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to be supporting the edit..."—no I'm not supporting it, but I expect editors to object to edits with a substantive rationale. The first rationale Hipocrite gave was unfounded; it simply demonstrated that Hipocrite is not familiar with the topic. Then Hipocrite made a 2nd revert that was accompanied only by a "process rationale". This is WP:GAME to me. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this needs administrator attention at this point. Talk it out on the talk page. If there is edit warring or gross incivility then it will become and administrative matter. Chillum 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding redirect from juvenile pornography to child pornography

Tried adding a redirect but it was blacklisted. Juvenile pornography is a term at least used legally and was referenced in an article I read, albeit without any proper redirect. Might just want to add that.

Thanks ! Dread Specter (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as the terms are synonymous—"Juvenile" == "child" (or is at least a sub-set) in most legal contexts. — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Admiral Norton 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz

Amolz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the same page over and over again, almost compulsively, even when consensus is clearly against him. He began to move it for no good reason without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. Multiple attempts by different users to contact him have shown he's unwilling to engage in any discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see discussion, and the sign of consensus is discussion. LPML, you (and Amolz) have been reverting without discussion, and that is essentially edit warring, though it hasn't reached 3RR levels. I see an uncivil edit summary from you, when you reverted the single move: you want to save time? start behaving like everyone else. There is an attempt at discussion on User talk:Amolz, to be sure, by Ricky81682, but Ricky seems to make the assumption that Amolz is reading his Talk page. Some new editors have no clue what to do with the new messages message.

I don't see "multiple attempts by different users to contact him," only Ricky81682.

However, Amolz is, in effect and whether it's realized or not, disruptive, making many and massive edits without discussion. The editor seems to be a continuation of prior IP. Edit summaries are generally not being used.

Ricky81682 is an administrator, and doesn't seem to have a long-term involvement with the article. Is there any reason why Ricky81682 can't handle this? He's already somewhat familiar with what is going on. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find the discussions I mentioned because he signed up just days ago, but before that he edited as an anonymous user for months, showing exactly the same kind of disruptive behaviour. I did try then, as Ricky is trying now, to discuss the question, but when someone doesn't even bother to answer you back it's hard to assume good faith.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz

Tturner2009 (talk · contribs) and Alexanderamsterdam (talk · contribs) have one mission: to clean the article Kim Schmitz from "hatefull" content - i.e. to establish a POV version of the article that could be written by Kim Schmitz himself. After registering they immediately and exclusively started an edit war to enforce an allegedly more balanced version of the article. I suspect socket puppetry, perhaps COI. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"His arrogant style of dealing with the computer scene...", "...he made an obscure statement on his web site that could have been interpreted as announcing his own suicide." I've got to be honest, I believe Alexanderamsterdam has improved the article by removing these (uncited) sentences. I'm not convinced I'd regard this user as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view. I notice you've both attempted to discuss the issue; could you try again? It doesn't look (to me at least) that this is yet anything other than a content dispute.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If he had simply removed uncited sentences I would see no problem. But he added more twice as much uncited facts, opinions and rumors, put up an edit war, ignored the discussion and used a sock puppet and simply denied any compromise. I tried to clean up the article myself and added some sources but he simply reverts to the PR version of the artcile. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant that much was added to the article; however, I don't see it as being any more (or less) uncited that the previous version, though, and it certainly seems more neutral. If you think that there's sock puppetry involved then file a report at WP:SPI. I've not looked at Tturner2009's contributions so I can't really comment about sock puppetry (and I'm even less of a checkuser than I am an administrator). You could also try asking on WP:3O for a third-opinion; my main point is that this doesn't really seem to be something that warrants administrator attention (at this point). Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought a stubborn two day edit war could and an IMHO extreme amount of POV could need some attention. I tried to file an report on WP:SPI but it seems you have to register first and so on. So I will forget the article and move on. Thanks for your time. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article, restored two removed subheadings, and left a note on the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I add some sources now. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeff-griffin-0192

Jeff-griffin-0192 (talk · contribs) made offensive threats against me before he was blocked. They are still listed at Special:Contributions/Jeff-griffin-0192. Is there any way that this history can be deleted? I am concerned at the ongoing presence of this material. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that for me,--WWGB-2 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that my WP identity has been cloned - see User:WWGB-2. Ho, hum. The real WWGB (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NICE. To whoever helped this guy out: way to sell out Misplaced Pages. Just because this person's feelings were hurt it's suddenly okay to delete stuff like it never happened? Way to go. Mechakucha (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through that user's edits, I see nothing bad enough to need deletion. That is, except for threats which have already been deleted from his/her user talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The threats were already deleted by User:Black Kite. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am Back and i will never go away. I have lots of ip address

I am a Technical Specialist. My knowledge covers LAN networking "hardware and software", hardware testing and benchmarking, some Visual Basic programming, HTML and web design, graphics design, excellent troubleshooting skills on computer systems, software implementation and compatibility, customize system performance on standalone PC’s, servers and entire networks. By Jeff Griffin --88.191.221.156 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have a collection of clockwork Std.8 cine cameras, most of which are in working condition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooh! I am a ghostlike image that can use a keyboard. I'm cooler than you both! HalfShadow 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Before this all started, the main things I did is revert vandalism and patrol new pages and recent changes. I also did minor grammar and formatting edits and try to improve articles. That’s until User:WWGB came to my page and clamed that I was doing vandalism. How he found me is wean I edited Ridgecrest, CA and anyone that edits that article, he gets them blocked. Well, I did nothing wrong and I think its time for him to understand the Misuse of administrative tools, Read ("Administrator abuse") at Misplaced Pages:Administrators. By Jeff Griffin--85.25.176.136 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You want WWGBm who is not an administrator, to read something about Administrator abuse? Why? If you want to be unblocked, there's a process for that. Meanwhile, you will be blocked for block evasion every time you appear. dougweller (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article picked up by Drudge Report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just an FYI, WND did an article about the Obama entry and Drudge picked it up. Might be a spike in activity there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• *facepalm* These guys need a new hobby. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Reading the WND article by Aaron Klein, and then checking the revision history of Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's hard to escape the conclusion that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this. Perhaps reporters with slow news days are going to start creating disputes to write about.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • In more ways than one you could say that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this article. If you catch my drift, although that crucial piece of information was not disclosed in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on ANI Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think all that stuff mentioned in the WND article would be in the 2008 campaign article as they all related specifically to that event. Rklawton (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus the whole Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article that they seem to have forgotten to mention. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think they forgot to mention that because there's no mention of it or link to it on the Barack Obama page? (Yes, I see this is closed, but I'm adding a comment anyway). And I must be a fringe nut wacko, because the Barack Obama article looks strangely scrubbed of every notable controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WND? Would that be World Nut Daily? IMO, they're about as nutty as DailyKos. —Travis 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is putting false information in Misplaced Pages and I am being called a vandal!

PROBLEM FIXED

Look at the Bank of Montreal article and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Both articles claim that the bank is the 4th largest by deposits. One of them is false. I am trying to correct it and User:BoomerAB and User:Rennaisancee are calling me a vandal.

They are accusing me falsely. Let's find out the true 4th largest and correct it. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is "Misplaced Pages, the fake information encyclopedia." Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you really Wells Fargo Bank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 March 2009

No, see talk page of Barek. User:Bankofamerica is permitted to have his user name. I have also discussed with Barek about another name. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already fixed it. It is no longer a problem. What I was not liking, and why I reverted your edits is because you always mentioned Misplaced Pages in them, and Misplaced Pages can not source itself on an article, for more information look here. I will delete my warning, but please be more careful with touchy topics as economics. Thank you! Renaissancee (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation accepted! I don't hate you. I just found an error within 5 minutes of looking at Misplaced Pages and started the ball rolling to fix it. The end result is now an error in Misplaced Pages has been fixed. Thank you, thank me. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent glitch

WP:ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can't be blocked. This is ugly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to take a hit off that bong and chill --NE2 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block log shows that they've been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They still seem to be actively vandalizing though? --John (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I spoke too soon. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block form leads to ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an innocent party. Can't find a workaround. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A bureaucrat could move this editor to a different username and then block that. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I was slightly wrong. The block form leads to the correct user (User:WP:ANI), but User:ANI receives the block. Good idea about the rename, any crats around? --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted a notification at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Must have already happened, because while deleting the leftover redirects, this user disappeared. I can no longer pull up his contribution history. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BN User:Angela did the honours. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there seem to be some side effects from this string of page move vandalisms and the attempts to revert them. For example, the U.S. state of Arizona seems to have disappeared entirely. WTucker (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed already. Appears to have been a side effect of having a half-dozen admins working on this all at once. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In case there are other articles that were deleted on accident, our vanal was renamed to WPANI (talk · contribs · block log). --06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Has somebody filed a Bugzilla report to fix the blocking page to allow blocking of these account names? Needs to be done ASAP as I'm sure the copycats will be appearing shortly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still not blocked, and it may come back again. But that is strange. I sent a report to WP:AIV, and... Versus22 _talk 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A short-term solution would be modifying MediaWiki:Titleblacklist—there is a parameter newaccountonly, which should help here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done at Meta, and the account's been globally locked. Kylu (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:17877 and bugzilla:17879. Dragons flight (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of data and citation

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation and data on Misplaced Pages on several occasions.

Case 1

Article: Coloman_of_Hungary; The article describes the reign of King Coloman of Hungary from 1095-1116.

Edit:

Sentence manipulated: Coloman I the Book-lover, also spelled Koloman (c. 1070 – 3 February 1116), King of Hungary (1095-1116)<ref1><ref2><ref3> and king of Croatia.<ref4><ref5> (1102-1116)

Citations used to support statement: <ref4> = Kingdom of Croatia (910-1091), <ref5> = Karacsonyi, Janos: The historical right of the Hungarian nation

Quotes from the sources:

<ref4> "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

<ref5> "It is untrue furthermore that Coloman has been crowned Croatian king in Tenger-Belgrad in 1102."

Case 2

Article: Croats; The article describes the Croatian people in the world.

Edit:

Data and citations manipulated:

Note: Two users attempted to correct part of the false information but both of them got reverted by user Rjecina. --Bizso (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After Bizso informed me, I demanded an explanation here but following the last chaos, I wonder if we've reached enough. Falsification of sources, especially in this area, should not be a joking matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina's edits, at least in the population statistics case, seem to have been reverts to an earlier version. They probably fall into the pattern of his tendency for reflex blanket reverts of new users he suspects of being sockpuppets (often rightly, independently of the actual quality of the edits). Judging the issue of falsification would require investigating who actually introduced the faulty state in the first place. Do we have information on this?

The other question is why Bizso is bringing this up now, at the "incidents" noticeboard, when most of the edits in question were weeks or even months ago. Didn't we tell both of these guys they are not to bring further complaints against each other to the noticeboards? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if something happened 3 weeks ago, we don't even remember it now... it has been blissfully forgotten. Man, I wish the world would function this way.--Bizso (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Perf. I asked Rjecina about it and suggest we want until explanation. Close this as inappropriate at this point, and we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly not a revert. I asked Ricky81682 about this. Please check all the sources and edits.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself manually checked everything, I didn't include the current numbers for the sources column, but the numbers cited by the sources used by Rjecina at the time.--Bizso (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a revert, it's from these edits which were correcting some numbers, but breaking the total population number that Rijcena calculated himself on the talk page here (checked as correct by myself). Rijcena was blindly reverting to the wrong version thinking that it was correct. The numbers were originally falsified by an annoying IP that has been changing Balcan numbers for months, seeUser_talk:78.157.9.88#1_month_block. Rijcena has in the past tried to correct the numbers. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this be a revert? He introduced brand new numbers.

Enric Naval, please explicitly show me which edit was reverted by user:Rjecina.

Also, that IP only made circa 2 edits on that article and all were trying to reduce the inflated numbers, which Rjecina reverted each time.--Bizso (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this edit from User:Rococoko, Rijcena even reverted the sources that the new numbers had. Rijcena left the countries in a different order so it's a bit difficult to see what numbers were changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further verification has indicated that it was this edit by User:Toroko at Coloman of Hungary that introduced the false information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How was that edit? He removed the king of Croatia title, not added it with false references? He didn't even use the sources used by Rjecina?!--Bizso (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And edits by Mrubcic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introducted the false information in the Croats article. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Coloman edit (back in December, by the way) was reinstating a passage of text ("... and king of Croatia") that was previously removed by somebody else . The addition of unsuitable footnotes is of course a sign of very sloppy editing; I wouldn't necessarily impute it to malice. The population statistics edit was an exact blanket revert to an earlier version . The falsified figures were inserted previously by a different user, in an act of vandalism that apparently slipped through unnoticed by all the regular editors on that page . Other parts of the incrimiated figures were inserted by yet somebody else, for instance the Chile figures here . Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the references the Rjecina added to King of Croatia? Was that also a revert to some other vandal's edit? Also, could please give me link to Misplaced Pages's policy on sloppy edits? I couldn't find one under WP:Sloppy--Bizso (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read, I commented on that in my previous post. Now, will you stop stirring the shit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Will am I stop stirring the shit? Is that an answer from an admin? really?--Bizso (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that 12 edit reversion at the Croat article. But the Coloman article is still unexplained. The reference that was given by user:Toroko refers to King of Hungary. The other two references inserted by Rjecina were not there. I find it unacceptable that Future Perfect Sunrise refer to this thread as "stirring the shit". I do not accept this kind of presonal attack against me. If you have a problem with me, then block me, it's in your power.--Bizso (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"?

Next, why was Rjecina reverting "vandalism" when false data was, in fact, being corrected by the "vandals"? Why did he cite two sources for the King of Croatia, when both references cited the exact opposite of what he was saying? Or is this sloppy editing of an "unexperienced new user", too?
For the croat article how could he say this ("I really do not agree with this data (inflated ?), but they are confirmed by sources)" ? Apparently, he knew that the data was inflated, but stated that the sources confirmed them.--Bizso (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edit has 3 sources, Rejcina kept one of the sources and replaced the oher two (Britannica and nationmaster) with other source that looks like found searching at google. It looks like sloppy work, he searched "king of croatia" and found that source without reading.... I don't know this them well, is there some nationalistic reason for Rejcina to falsify that information deliberately? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The original edit had 3 sources for king of hungary and Rjecina added another 2 for king of coratia. Please see the thread above. There was an ongoing dispute whether Coloman was crowned separately as king of Croatia in 1102. In addition, he knew the content of the sources as they had been talked about in other articles before in which he had participated. Furthermore, why was he not reverting the edits at the Croat article that were unreasonably promoting the falsified data, and why did he revert those that attempted to correct it?--Bizso (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute here, but we should avoid using Nationmaster as a source - they use Misplaced Pages as a source, and that circular referencing can cause problems with actually verifying information. Most of their other sources are acceptable in and of themselves and can be referenced directly. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but Nationmaster was used in an earlier edit. That's not the disputed edit here.--Bizso (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People, please only make a new post here if you have a better explanation for said user's falsification of sources and data than "sloppy editing" and "he thought he was reverting to the good numbers".--Bizso (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, you know what. You were warned specifically about this a few days ago. Either you stop this right now or I'm blocking you. Rjecina was not the one falsifying information and that's clear now. Copying over falsified information is sloppy and lazy editing, but not disruptive. However, if you refuse to accept that, you are not going to be welcome here any longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. You've make your point. Others however do not feel that sloppy editing from months ago is relevant. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me?

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.

Fourth, I wonder why the admins are defending the user concerned, and not the user himself comes here and explain his edits.--Bizso (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I have a tendency of defending Rjecina: because he's been the victim of a relentless harassment campaign from a multiple-sockpuppeting banned user. And you, with your decision to revert-war extensively for the reinsertion of that banned user's edits as well as other activities of yours, have created at least some basis for the impression that you may be part of the same pattern. Now, I don't deny for a moment that Rjecina's edits are often quite problematic. I wish banned harassers in such cases had the sense of realising that through their continued hounding they are actually protecting their victims. After having seen a million complaints against Rjecina, and finding that 95% of them originate from banned socks, admins just stop responding. No matter how seriously problematic his activity may be, we will just react with the reflex of "oh, it's the socks again". If the banned user in question really has the aim of getting his nemesis banned, then if he had any sense at all, he would realise that the best and only way of achieving his goal would be to finally leave this project alone and do absolutely nothing. Once the user in question could edit without the interference of the banned socks for a while, we would easily see what in his editing actually is disruptive and what isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You totally lack an objective viewpoint. This sux. I instead laugh at this. You should have not posted this utter nonsense at all. --Bizso (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

WP:AIV needs some cleaning.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 11:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done (although not by me). Stifle (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

dumdidum - full again.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 11:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also could need s.o. to speedy Gyanendra Shah for reversing a redirect. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be caught up for the moment, so I am tagging this as resolved. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this redirect by registered editor User:A Man In Black

User:A Man In Black redirected the article Johnny Bravo (character) to Johnny Bravo and it was against consensus (I personally have no opinion). Both the AfD and DRV pointed to keep. I am a huge fan of policy. I reverted his edit and reverted back saying he is allowed to redirect at will regardless of consensus. Keep in him he actually engaged in the AfD and was well aware of the consensus. I'm not sure if this warrents a warning. In the past he is leaned heavily on deletionism including nominating article where he was the only one who argued for delete. Just wondering who is right in this situation. Valoem 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AMIB is correct that "AFD doesn't prevent redirects or merges." Discuss the appropriate status of the article/redirect on the article or redirect's talk page and reach consensus. Do not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Until there's any edit warring, there's no need for administrative intervention. See bold, revert, discuss for an idealisation of how these things should go. AFD/DRV should have binary keep/delete outcomes, other editorial actions may be discussed whenever. WilyD 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No i personally agree with his redirect. It was done in good faith. I do feel however that if someone does disgree with that redirect they do have priority to revert the redirect as it was against general consensus. Valoem 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, if someone disagreed with the redirect we could move from there. However, I don't see anyone disagreeing except you, and you just said you don't disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was merely basing my request on policy. I doubt he remembers but we had a inclusionist deletionist dispute 2 years which is way I notice him. Regardless that was a harmless statement. I have no further questions regarding this. Valoem 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" votes in AfD are functionally equivalent to "Keep" votes - they're only suggestions for how the article might be cleaned up in the event that it is kept. After the debate is over regular editors of the article can take any action they like, and form consensus among themselves. User:DHowell in fact explicitly said "Keep without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided ." Dcoetzee 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. It was a bold redirect. AfD is primarily concerned with deletion, not merges or redirects. If anybody disagrees with it they can revert and discussion can begin. Themfromspace (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is quibbling, and we've tolerated it too long. we're talking about a redirect. A redirect-- or a merge with nothing merged-- is functionally the equivalent of a delete. it removes the content of the article. The only difference is that it does not remove the history. Considering it otherwise is putting the Misplaced Pages deletion process at the mercy of those deletionists who want to remove content and are willing to do so against consensus, because if they do the redirect and get away with it, no keep decision will stand. There is however a solution without changing the wording of the rule or resorting to IAR--which is to simply revert, and then there must be consensus gotten for the redirect. unfortunately, this was already tried--Valoem reverted AMAB. The next step, as pointed out by BRD, was to discuss. But AMAB did not disciss--he reverted right back again. I've dealt with it for the moment by re-reverting. To follow BRD one must if reverted discuss. If not, in a situation like this, it is either editwarring or attempting to pervert process. There is a conceivable argument for his redirecting --there is none for his continuing to do so without discussion. I have notified him of this discussion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your entire statement would be relevent if there was someone who was engaging in the "R" part of BRD for anything other than their own personal unawareness of process. Specifically, the user who reverted wrote on AMIB's talk page before AMIB reverted back to the redirect - "I personally have no opinion." It's not BRD if there's no one to "D" with. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that the article is completely redundant to the section on the character in the main article; thus a merge is reasonable except there's nothing useful to merge and hence a redirect is effectively a merge. As AMIB said in the original AfD - "Nobody's saying that this isn't notable; the argument is that it is not in any way a separate subject." Black Kite 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this is not the place for your view on this. the place is the discussion of the redirect, as it would have been equally appropriate t the AfD, where this view was rejected. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, the less said about that Article Rescue Squad hitjob AfD the better. My point was in reply to your comment that "A redirect - or a merge with nothing merged - is functionally the equivalent of a delete" - but what if there's nothing further to merge? (I don't actually disagree with your revert, by the way, since it wasn't discussed after the first revert). Black Kite 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a rescue effort a "hitjob" is a bit much. If you do not think it was adequate enough, okay, but please avoid needlessly condescending language. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this isn't the place for Black Kite's opinion on whether the redirect was appropriate, why is it the place for your opinion on the redirect? I discussed it with Valoem, realized he thought there was some sort of technical point here and he didn't have any opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I do have an opinion, as I said in the first place at the AfD, and so my reversion just made should stand until consensus is obtained otherwise. I have started the discussion at the character talk page. I've modified my statement above, but I continue my view that do subvert a public decision by a less public move is a misuse of process. The real way of preventing it is a frank admission that redirect does what redirect does--or at least an actual requirement for public announcements of such proposed redirects. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced about the preferability of the redirect, but the way to overthrow an afd result s Deletion review or afd2 after an interval. alternate exchanges at ANB aren't a good way to discuss the merits of edits, redirects, or deletions. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not in any way a subversion of the AFD. You can't merge potential, and this isn't a separate subject.

And who the heck is AMAB?- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Me. --NE2 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that, AMIB, its the graphic confusion from the triangle in your sig :). DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking File:Iran Navy.jpg's copyright

I'm a sysop from Commons. File:Iran Navy.jpg has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that no author nor source is mentioned except en:, where the picture was deleted after its transfer. Can one of you tell me whether a valid author and/or source was initially mentioned? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no source nor author information in the deleted revisions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem listing articel for deletion?

I tried to list Who's your daddy? (phrase) (edit talk links history) for deletion. But it doesn't seem to have worked.--HeinousMacaw (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the AfD page and the link appears to be there. Also the AfD box on the page seems to link the AfD discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Concur, cross-checked here //FrankB 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation...

*This can be considered a {{Db-author}} by this very new HeinousMacaw (talk · contribs) newbie.revised per this My bad! // FrankB 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (mistooken page// FrankB 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

2X BOT moves needed

re: Category:German publishers(edit talk links history) & Category:English publishers(edit talk links history)

• AWB or BOT editors needed:

1. There are about 20 pages needing moved to tbe more appropriately focused category pages in the two cats listed above,
2. Waste of time for CFD, just name confused dups;... perfect candidates for being permanently kept as {{Category redirect}} pages, which is how I tagged them.

Cheers, and thanks. // FrankB 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, but I went through with some HotCat and did the work for you. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on PJHaseldine

Over at Misplaced Pages:COIN#Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine there is a discussion of banning this editor from any articles related to the Lockerbie disaster. This is a long-running issue regarding Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and until recently, there was a sort of voluntary agreement in place by which Patrick would refrain from editing articles that referred to his own real-life activities. The voluntary agreement seems to be no longer working, so I have proposed a formal restriction, which would be added to the list at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Please comment in the COIN thread if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a further edit to this saga. It relates to THF, who is an avid supporter of the topic ban that EdJohnston has proposed against me, and has made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of the COI discussion nugatory.

Earlier today, I received the following email from a Misplaced Pages editor: "Can I tell you something privately? I am not too happy with THF. He has nominated ten articles I started for deletion yesterday, and it gives the appearance of an act of retaliation. Privately, I will share my doubts that THF is really committed to all the wikipedia's policies. THF really didn't seem to take the trouble to actually read the articles. I am saying this privately because, strategically, I think it is best to continue to give the outward appearance that one is still capable of assuming good faith -- even when one's good faith is exhausted -- because assuming good faith is the policy. Sometimes your correspondent loses their cool, and you 'win' because you kept yours. Sometimes, by continuing to give the appearance you still assume good faith you can force bad faith correspondents to also act in good faith, and you can reach an acceptable compromise. I don't know if I need to say this, but the other people are correct, the redirection from user space to[REDACTED] space was counter policy. I am sure that was an innocent lapse. I think we we will be able to get the Yvonne Bradley article restored. But I can't work on it until these ten {afd} have run to completion. Cheers!"---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's "retaliatory" is attempting to distract attention from your wrongdoing by bringing a frivolous complaint against a third party--likely in response to my deleting the self-promotional violation of WP:OR you added to two articles. For those that are interested, the eleven nominations are all listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law: one has already resulted in a speedy delete, and it appears that at least eight of the others will succeed, and possibly all ten, so it's hard to argue that these are bad-faith nominations. I have for weeks complained about the creation of dozens of non-notable Guantanamo-related articles, so it is hardly a surprise that I am now acting on that complaint after my first foray into a deletion nomination, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley, was judged by consensus to be correct. THF (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need I say more?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First you quote a private email, now you Plaxico yourself. What next? Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards